get_base_apitools_followingsIdsSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api-reference/get-friends-ids Group: follows. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| screenName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral disclosure is billing cost (1 Credit per call) and the group 'follows.' No safety, authentication, rate limit, or pagination behavior is described, and there are no annotations to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it is not well-structured as a tool explanation; it reads as a raw note with a link, group label, and billing info. It is concise but not effectively front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It offers only an external link and cost, leaving essential operational details entirely absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names no parameters. The agent gets no explanations for cursor, userId, screenName, proxyUrl, or resFormat, making it impossible to know how to pass them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title 'Get Followings Ids' clearly indicates the tool fetches IDs of accounts a user follows. However, the description text itself only provides a link and metadata, doing nothing to differentiate it from sibling tools like followersIds or followingsList.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where other tools would be preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.